State lawmakers’ efforts to remove federal land protections met with resistance

Legislation in support of efforts to roll back federal land protections met strong opposition during initial hearings in Helena this week.

About 50 opponents testified in the Montana House against a resolution introduced by Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, supporting a lawsuit Utah filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. While House Joint Resolution 24 is not legally binding, its passage would signify the Legislature’s support for Utah’s argument that the federal government’s retention of “unappropriated” land is unconstitutional. Critics said that would set a dangerous precedent. 

“Signing on to support Utah opens the door for our public lands in Montana to be disposed of,” said Mack Long, chair of Montana Backcountry Horsemen, at a March 24 hearing. 

Federal lands account for 29% of Montana’s area, including some 8 million acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management that could fall under Utah’s definition of “federal lands within the state that are not specifically designated for a particular purpose.” Much of this area is currently open to residents for recreation or is used for resource extraction. 

“My constituents up in Northwest Montana asked me to bring [the resolution],” said Millett. 

But polling suggests that most Montanans support federal protections for public lands. A biennial survey that the University of Montana has conducted since 2012 shows consistent support for increasing federal land protections rather than decreasing them.  

After Millett introduced the resolution, conservation group Wild Montana published an online petition asking state lawmakers to “unequivocally reject” the measure. As of March 26, the petition had received about 2,910 signatures. 

“I think Montanans are happy that we’re not like the East Coast,” testified Noah Marion, the political and state policy director for Wild Montana. 

A SECOND Wild Montana petition rejecting Senate Joint Resolution 14 received more than 3,200 signatures. That resolution calls for the release of about 1.2 million acres classified as either a Wilderness Study Area or an Inventoried Roadless Areas, including the Ten Lakes and Bitter Creek wilderness study areas and areas in the Badger-Two Medicine area. 

Like HJ 24, the legislation is not legally binding but sends a message of support for the U.S. Congress to take actions to release the land. The resolution is co-sponsored by Reps. Courtenay Sprunger, R-Kalispell, Carl Glimm, R-Kila, John Fuller, R-Kalispell, Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, and Ed Byrne, R-Bigfork. 

At a March 25 hearing, fears about the dispossession of public lands again played a central role. Kalispell resident Eleanore Eberts was one of 30 people who spoke in opposition to the resolution. 

“Managment is not the goal of this bill,” said Eberts. “It’s to make the way for mining and other resource extraction, which will lead to consequent destruction of these wild places.” 

The resolution’s primary sponsor, Sen. Tony Tezak, R-Ennis, disputed assertions that the release of the lands would commit them to resource extraction, but several proponents referenced recent executive orders issued by the White House to expand logging, mining and other industries. 

“I think our timing on this resolution is fabulous with the discussion of forest management happening in D.C. right now,” said E.J. Redding, who represented Citizens for Balanced Use, a group that advocates for protecting open spaces for multiple uses, including recreation and natural resource extraction. 

Eight proponents spoke in favor of SJ 14, and no proponents attended the hearing for HJ 24. Several statewide conservation and outdoor recreation groups, including Montana Audubon, Trout Unlimited, Montana Wildlife Federation and Backcountry Horsemen opposed both pieces of legislation.  

Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at hsmalley@dailyinterlake.com or 758-4433.